| 查看: 4358 | 回复: 71 | |||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | |||
[交流]
第一次投稿，RSC Advances 两个审稿人一个据稿，一个大修，编辑给了大修的意见
|
|||
|
本人前段时间自己写了篇通讯文章，老板看了说写的还可以，但是没有时间帮我修改还有投稿，自己投稿RSC Advances，第一次投稿，昨天编辑给了审稿意见，两个审稿人，一个大修，一个据稿，编辑给了大修的意见，不知道还有没有希望！ 下面是编辑回信还有审稿人的意见 TITLE: Facile Route to Synthesize and morphology control of Anionic Waterborne Polyurethane Hollow Microspheres via Self-Crosslinking Reaction Thank you for your submission to RSC Advances, published by the Royal Society of Chemistry. I sent your manuscript to reviewers and I have now received their reports which are copied below. I have carefully evaluated your manuscript and the reviewers’ reports, and the reports indicate that major revisions are necessary. Please submit a revised manuscript which addresses all of the reviewers’ comments. Further peer review of your revised manuscript may be needed. When you submit your revised manuscript please include a point by point response to the reviewers’ comments and highlight the changes you have made. Full details of the files you need to submit are listed at the end of this email. Referee: 1 Recommendation: Major revisions Comments: In this paper, a kind of hollow microspheres were prepared by self-crosslinking reaction of waterborne polyurethane (WPU). There are some questions as following: 1) The reaction mechanism of forming hollow microspheres was not clear. It is suggested that author give this reaction mechanism. 2) The diameter of hollow microspheres is not uniform. Could you find a method to control uniform diameter? 3) Which kind of regions that the hollow microspheres could be applied ? Additional Questions: Does the work significantly advance the understanding or development in this field? : No Are the conclusions of the work convincing and sufficiently supported by experimental evidence?: Yes Is the experimental section sufficiently detailed to allow others to reproduce the work?: No Are the reported claims adequately discussed in the context of the literature?: Yes Are the number of tables and figures in the manuscript appropriate and clear?: No Referee: 2 Recommendation: Reject Comments: Manuscript by Guo et al. describes the preparation of polyurethane hollow microsphere by self-cross linking process which is different from the process published by Li et al for waterborne hollow PU microspheres. The manuscript is well written and describes the research well. I have following suggestions and concerns for the current work: 1. The TEM and SEM images in Figure 1 indicates different size of microspheres. It seems this process doesn’t produce uniform microspheres which is the critical point in this area of research. How do authors compare these results from literature in term of advancement of process? 2. What is the average size of holes in hollow microspheres? It seems holes are not clearly visible from the images. How do you compare holes in your microspheres with similar standing literature ? 3. Figure 3 shows OM images for different carboxyl concentrations which doesn’t say anything. Could you please provide high magnification images to demonstrate that microspheres are not fusing with each other. Please also make sure statics is correct with respect to diameter of polymer microspheres. Additional Questions: Does the work significantly advance the understanding or development in this field? : No Are the conclusions of the work convincing and sufficiently supported by experimental evidence?: Yes Is the experimental section sufficiently detailed to allow others to reproduce the work?: Yes Are the reported claims adequately discussed in the context of the literature?: No Are the number of tables and figures in the manuscript appropriate and clear?: Yes 前辈们给分析一下 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
有多少人是今天查系统知道结果的？
已经有17人回复
-
国自然面上复盘~欢迎讨论
已经有6人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8.O.551.O.5.4,科目全,可伽急
已经有4人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有4人回复
-
基金不中，共勉
已经有5人回复
-
看板上这么多中的，有点像50人群里49个人都是骗子的那种感觉……
已经有3人回复
-
我不理解！
已经有23人回复
-
2026年的国家社科基金项目通讯评审的新规则与新动向、新挑战
已经有10人回复
-
系统查不到
已经有10人回复
-
怎么查啊
已经有5人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 第一次投稿RSC ADV，审稿意见中有一条关于BET的不太清楚，各位大神求帮忙！
已经有5人回复
- RSC advances发来信件说作者信息不全，第一次投稿求大神们指点，以下是信件截图
已经有7人回复
- 第一篇 review，被拒了，编辑推荐投 RSC advances，大家怎么看？
已经有4人回复
- 两次投稿统一数据库，要求把第一次的修改情况发过去
已经有3人回复
- 请问通过RSC Advance 的前辈们，选择编辑的问题。
已经有16人回复
- 投CC被拒，有什么期刊可以改投呢
已经有17人回复
- RSC Adv审稿意见，请各位指导下啊，关于质谱和药化，只挑了部分问题
已经有110人回复
- RSC投稿系统，下载上传版本不同的问题。
已经有3人回复
- RSC ADV投稿求助，望投过此刊的虫子给予帮助指导，谢谢
已经有1人回复
- JMCA投稿后大修，返回修改稿后收到邮件，不懂什么意思啊，求大神帮忙
已经有8人回复
- 第一次投稿遇到问题
已经有5人回复
- 投稿RSC-advances遇到的问题，求解释
已经有2人回复
- 文章历时三年，多次被拒，终被RSC ADV接收，聊以记之，以飨虫友。
已经有376人回复
- RSC投稿交流
已经有1人回复
- RSC投稿后，You have no submitted manuscripts.
已经有6人回复
- RSC拒稿后重投，急
已经有3人回复
- RSC的PCCP投稿求助
已经有11人回复
- RSC投稿之后发现若干问题，纠结中
已经有11人回复
34楼2015-08-18 10:15:07
freedom251610楼2015-08-18 09:56:46
